A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

Del2005 · 08-11-2014 02:54PM

I sincerely doubt that Shannon would be the first target in a nuclear war, I'd say that the first strike would be on the nuclear missile bases of who ever doesn't shoot first. Even in a conventional war hitting Shannon would be way down the list. So there's no point in us putting up aircraft to protect against bombing as if aircraft are reaching Ireland than a lot of better equipped armies have been defeated.

What we need to worry about is Ireland being used as a soft back door into Europe, turning us into an unsinkable aircraft carrier like the UK in WW2, for an aggressive country. If a country has the resources to do this then I doubt our budget could cover the equipment required or pay to maintain a standing army to use the equipment we can't afford anyway.

To intercept commercial aircraft I saw something on the news of a company that's made a fighter based on commercial aircraft parts which would be much cheaper to operate, just can't find any information on it, but we could look to get something like that to replace the stupid, for us, PC9. What's the point in a fast jet trainer when we'll never have fast jets?

cruasder777 · 08-11-2014 05:50PM

Jawgap wrote: »

Really?

Because some nobody called Dr Garret Fitzgerald tells a different story in his memoir - "Reflections On The Irish State" - he recounts at page 198 the discussions that took place in the lead to the application being made.

The idea that we were refused because because the Soviets weren't interested in us was mentioned by Col Travers in his articles. And Dr Fitzgerald also points out that it was our insistence on the country being unified that contributed to the scuppering of the proposal.

There was also another serious period of consideration given to joining just after the Alliance was set up.

Lemass (and Whitaker) were in favour of it as it was seen as bolstering our application for EEC membership in the early 60s. Even the bold CJ was disposed towards it when he was Taoiseach.

Are you now saying you know more than a two-time Taoiseach and a senior Defence Force officer who had direct contact with Soviet Embassy officials when they visited to the Command and Staff School of the Irish Military College?

I suggest you stop believing political spin. You cant join if involved in existing territorial disputes with an existing member.

Its part of NATOs charter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10244873/Nato-blow-to-SNPs-defence-plans-for-independent-Scotland.html

Senior sources confirmed that Scottish Government officials were informed at Nato headquarters that countries wanting to join are not allowed to “import” existing military or territorial disputes into the alliance

cruasder777 · 08-11-2014 06:16PM

Manach wrote: »

Offhand, having territorial disputes is fairly on the par for European countries. While thankfully these are resolved in international law or put in the back burner, offhand Nato countries which have such are Italy in the Tyrol, UK and Spain, UK and Iceland,Turkey and Greece, Hungary with Romania.
Hence this would not block Ireland's membership with NATO?

How could Ireland join if it was claiming the territory of an exciting member ?

Common sense says such an approach would undermine the whole organisation.

Hence NATOs charter precluding it.

Jawgap · 08-11-2014 07:37PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

I suggest you stop believing political spin. You cant join if involved in existing territorial disputes with an existing member.

Its part of NATOs charter.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10244873/Nato-blow-to-SNPs-defence-plans-for-independent-Scotland.html

Senior sources confirmed that Scottish Government officials were informed at Nato headquarters that countries wanting to join are not allowed to “import” existing military or territorial disputes into the alliance

Yes and if you look at what I wrote you'll see that issue was to be addressed......

Jawgap wrote: »

......

The idea that we were refused because because the Soviets weren't interested in us was mentioned by Col Travers in his articles. And Dr Fitzgerald also points out that it was our insistence on the country being unified that contributed to the scuppering of the proposal.

........

Btw - I think you're a gas man........you call a memoir from one of the great statesmen this country has produced that uses the Dail record, Memoranda to Government and recollections of conversations with two of the other great Irishmen that have ever lived (Lemass and Whitaker) 'spin'............even when it's backed up by a former Commandant of the Military College......

.......before going on to quote from a paper known colloquially as the "Torygraph"

I commend you on your sense of irony

Btw, acccording to NATO's own site (not as authoritative as perhaps the Telegraph).....

NATO’s “open door policy” is based on Article 10 of its founding treaty. Any decision to invite a country to join the Alliance is taken by the North Atlantic Council on the basis of consensus among all Allies. No third country has a say in such deliberations.

.....and Art 10 says.....

The Parties may, by unanimous agreement, invite any other European State in a position to further the principles of this Treaty and to contribute to the security of the North Atlantic area to accede to this Treaty. Any State so invited may become a Party to the Treaty by depositing its instrument of accession with the Government of the United States of America. The Government of the United States of America will inform each of the Parties of the deposit of each such instrument of accession.

Which part of the charter supports your view that

cruasder777 wrote: »

....... You cant join if involved in existing territorial disputes with an existing member.

Its part of NATOs charter.
...........

......and if what you say is true.......how come there's a rake of former Yugoslav countries on track to join - can't imagine there isn't one or two disputes among that lot?

cruasder777 · 08-11-2014 09:06PM

Jawgap"NATO’s “open door policy” is based on Article 10 of its founding treaty. Any decision to invite a country to join the Alliance is taken by the North Atlantic Council on the basis of consensus among all Allies. No third country has a say in such deliberations. unquote

Which is what the UK did with Ireland behind the scenes in blocking membership due to its territorial claim.

http://www.euractiv.com/enlargement/court-blames-greece-blocking-mac-news-509449

The International Court of Justice has ruled today (5 December) that by blocking Macedonia's NATO bid in April 2008, Greece has breached a bilateral agreement signed between the two countries in 1995.

The ruling of the Hague-based court, adopted by 15 votes to one, finds that Greece, by objecting to the admission of the Macedonia to NATO in April 2008, has breached its obligation not to block the country's accession to international organizations,

Jawgap · 08-11-2014 09:17PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

Debating with you is like shooting fish in a barrel, members can block others members from joining.

http://www.euractiv.com/enlargement/court-blames-greece-blocking-mac-news-509449

The International Court of Justice has ruled today (5 December) that by blocking Macedonia's NATO bid in April 2008, Greece has breached a bilateral agreement signed between the two countries in 1995.

The ruling of the Hague-based court, adopted by 15 votes to one, finds that Greece, by objecting to the admission of the Macedonia to NATO in April 2008, has breached its obligation not to block the country's accession to international organizations,

Of course they can........as I originally pointed out the US and UK blocked Ireland's application, not because of our territorial claims but because securitywise we were bringing nothing to the party and weren't threatened by the USSR.

And Russia is knackering Ukraine's and Georgia's application by ensuring there are active territorial disputes but as the charter makes clear there's no pre-requisites for joining.

Greece and FYR Macedonia have been going at it since the the latter came into existence - the Greeks, because of the historical associations with Alexander, don't want a country called Macedonia to exist.

Now, do you have any thing better than a second rate Irish newspaper, a Tory mouthpiece and a corporate sponsored Belgian website to support your position.

What's your next source - Pravda?

Jawgap · 08-11-2014 09:20PM

......and ICJ has no jurisdiction over NATO - it's findings are purely advisory.

cruasder777 · 08-11-2014 09:25PM

quote Jawgap : not because of our territorial claims but because securitywise we were bringing nothing to the party and weren't threatened by the USSR. unquote

...This is nonsense, Ireland is Europe's western flank, NATO radar stations could pick up early warning of Russian nukes from that direction. As well as basing anti submarine warfare resources there in the cold war.

Since Irelands territorial dispute with the UK is now settled, NATO has stated the door is open for Ireland to join.

Its Fitzgerald putting a spin on why membership was refused, not giving the real reason.

Jawgap · 08-11-2014 09:33PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

quote Jawgap : not because of our territorial claims but because securitywise we were bringing nothing to the party and weren't threatened by the USSR. unquote

...This is nonsense, Ireland is Europe's western flank, NATO radar stations could pick up early warning of Russian nukes from that direction. As well as basing anti submarine warfare resources there in the cold war.

Since Irelands territorial dispute with the UK is now settled, NATO has stated the door is open for Ireland to join.

Its Fitzgerald putting a spin on why membership was refused, not giving the real reason.

Well, then, it's nonsense promulgated by a senior retired DF Officer who incidentally went on to serve as director if the Institute for International Criminal Investigations - a branch of the ICJ you cited earlier!

Btw, what of the Gulf of Piran dispute between Slovenia and Coratia? That was a pretty poisonous affair and while it threatened Coratia's accession it didn't stop it.

Btw" Fitzgerald quotes liberally and references the relevant state documents so I'm not sure how you get he was spinning - I somehow doubt you've read the book to be able to pass judgment on it

Jawgap · 08-11-2014 09:44PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

quote Jawgap : not because of our territorial claims but because securitywise we were bringing nothing to the party and weren't threatened by the USSR. unquote

...This is nonsense, Ireland is Europe's western flank, NATO radar stations could pick up early warning of Russian nukes from that direction. As well as basing anti submarine warfare resources there in the cold war.

Since Irelands territorial dispute with the UK is now settled, NATO has stated the door is open for Ireland to join.

Its Fitzgerald putting a spin on why membership was refused, not giving the real reason.

Sorry, but you do realise the earth is round and that ICBMs and bombers were subject to detection by the DEW line and BMEWS line? Potential trajectories didn't overfly Ireland.

cruasder777 · 08-11-2014 11:54PM

Bombers and ICBMs were subject to detection by NATINADS, (NATOs integrated air defence system), and BMEWs.

There was actually at least one unofficial NATO "radarstation" in Ireland, as I stated its Europes western flank. Ireland has been invited to join since the mid 90s and its territorial dispute was settled. Britain actually regarded Ireland as a weak point in NATOs defence. But Ireland could not join NATO due to its unresolved territorial claims on another member, the UK unofficially blocked its membership, as it had previously done with the UN. Irish politicans spun it as it never wanted to join anyway, which you believe.

Cork would have been a useful harbour for NATOs north Atlantic sub hunting fleet.

Ireland is now a NATO partner, all that stops it joining is its population who are more national looking then international looking and who would vote against it.

Shatter is on record as stating Irelands "unique" anti IED capability (cough, cough) would give it a unique place in NATO.

Jawgap · 09-11-2014 08:53AM

cruasder777 wrote: »

Bombers and ICBMs were subject to detection by NATINADS, (NATOs integrated air defence system), and BMEWs.

There was actually at least one unofficial NATO "radarstation" in Ireland, as I stated its Europes western flank. Ireland has been invited to join since the mid 90s and its territorial dispute was settled. Britain actually regarded Ireland as a weak point in NATOs defence. But Ireland could not join NATO due to its unresolved territorial claims on another member, the UK unofficially blocked its membership, as it had previously done with the UN. Irish politicans spun it as it never wanted to join anyway, which you believe.

Cork would have been a useful harbour for NATOs north Atlantic sub hunting fleet.

Ireland is now a NATO partner, all that stops it joining is its population who are more national looking then international looking and who would vote against it.

Shatter is on record as stating Irelands "unique" anti IED capability (cough, cough) would give it a unique place in NATO.

Actually NATINADS can only detect aircraft.

Where is/was this unofficial NATO radar station? (You're going to say Mount Gabriel, aren't you

)

When was the invitation for Ireland to join NATO issued? And where is the information that supports the rest of your nonsense - was it discussed in the Dail for example?

Cork as a sub hunting base - why? Other than being able to handle a bit of refuelling, what in the world makes you think it could handle the size and type of ship and frequency of movements involved in ASW????

Not only have never denied that Ireland is a member of PfP (sometimes seen as in the case of Serbia as the first step to membership) but you seem to be confused over what is stopping is from joining.....

cruasder777 wrote: »

.......But Ireland could not join NATO due to its unresolved territorial claims on another member, the UK unofficially blocked its membership, as it had previously done with the UN. .......

all that stops it joining is its population who are more national looking then international looking and who would vote against it.

EDIT: Personally, I think we're not willing to join NATO because our security situation doesn't require it and we simply don't have the money to support a 'NATO' defence budget.

Oh, and Ireland's application for membership of the UN was blocked by the USSR - just another thing you're wrong on

btw - I've taken the liberty of linking to the minutes of the Security Council Meeting where the Soviets put the boot in against us, but I suppose that could just be UN 'spin.'

and yes, the Irish Defence Forces' IED capability is well recognised, but given such personnel already serve I'm not sure why they'd want us to join to access expertise they already have available to them?

I could be wrong, but isn't ISAF a NATO mission?

And again, I could be wrong but aren't these Irish soldiers wearing ISAF patches?

gallag · 10-11-2014 02:35PM

in a these modern times would Ireland be an asset to the UK regarding air defence/radar? Certainly years ago it would have but couldn't the UK just park a type 45 of N.I and let the Sampson radar do its job? The six type 45 destroyers could probably be positioned strategically around the British Isles and create a truly impenetrable missile defence shield.

Larbre34 · 12-11-2014 05:12PM

gallag wrote: »

in a these modern times would Ireland be an asset to the UK regarding air defence/radar? Certainly years ago it would have but couldn't the UK just park a type 45 of N.I and let the Sampson radar do its job? The six type 45 destroyers could probably be positioned strategically around the British Isles and create a truly impenetrable missile defence shield.

Just because you can see it, doesn't mean you can stop it.

Israel will tell you loads about the Iron Dome intercepts, they'll probably be quieter about what got through.

knucklehead6 · 12-11-2014 05:26PM

gallag wrote: »

in a these modern times would Ireland be an asset to the UK regarding air defence/radar? Certainly years ago it would have but couldn't the UK just park a type 45 of N.I and let the Sampson radar do its job? The six type 45 destroyers could probably be positioned strategically around the British Isles and create a truly impenetrable missile defence shield.

I didn't think the Type 45's had a TMD capability?

BoJack Horseman · 12-11-2014 06:08PM

knucklehead6 wrote: »

I didn't think the Type 45's had a BMD capability?

No, not currently, though its radar may one day be up for the task.

Also I think they lack the missiles with sufficient range.

OzCam · 13-11-2014 10:10PM

Del2005 wrote: »

...a company that's made a fighter based on commercial aircraft parts which would be much cheaper to operate...

You're probably thinking of the Scorpion. Promising little bird, but it's designed to be part of a much more capable force. CAP might be a bit beyond it.

If we were serious about our national defence, and If we could afford it, we'd be leasing a bunch of Gripens. Our Army would be twice the size, and much better equipped and paid. Think CV90 class vehicles, or similar with wheels, for a start. The Navy would also have several considerably larger and more multi-role vessels, EPV class, with teeth. And be better paid, they can't even fill all the bunks as it is.

But we're not, and we can't. It's all wishful thinking.

Gatling · 13-11-2014 10:34PM

Jawgap wrote: »

the Irish Defence Forces' IED capability is well recognised, but given such personnel already serve I'm not sure why they'd want us to join to access expertise they already have available to them?

I could be wrong, but isn't ISAF a NATO mission?

And again, I could be wrong but aren't these Irish soldiers wearing ISAF patches?

Yes your correct on the Irish troops in Afghanistan 30+ have apparently served there over several deployments
under the ISAF badge which was setup by the UN security council and commanded by Nato if I'm correct.
we are part of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) nations to contribute along with several other small states. we contributed the lowest force of 7 soldiers to the ISAF mission

Icepick · 13-11-2014 10:39PM

cruasder777 wrote: »

How could Ireland join if it was claiming the territory of an exciting member ?

Common sense says such an approach would undermine the whole organisation.

Hence NATOs charter precluding it.

Nope, see for example Spain and Gib

Anyaway, Britain is our first line of defence

cruasder777 · 13-11-2014 11:32PM

Icepick wrote: »

Nope, see for example Spain and Gib

Anyaway, Britain is our first line of defence

When Spain joined NATO in 82, it was not in dispute over Gibraltar at that time, it did not claim sovereignty, it was a new democratic state, the new democratic Spain only in 85 sought joint sovereignty then later full sovereignty.

I suggest you read the links posted.

Nato document

6) States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm?

Manach · 14-11-2014 12:32AM

I regret I can not furnish a text, but AFAIR Spain under Franco was fairly insistent on Gib. being part of the Spanish mainland. It had at least on one occasion make cross-border traffic difficult with the outpost if not a full blockade and had tried to get the UN involve in the dispute.

Jawgap · 14-11-2014 07:28AM

There's also a rake of competing territorial claims between Canada and the US.

Spain blockaded Gib from 1969 to 1982 when they joined NATO. However, free access by road was not restarted until 1984.

To my knowledge Spain still claim the isthmus and didn't they in more recent times block or severely restrict road traffic to and from there following a dispute over an artificial reef?

cruasder777 · 14-11-2014 10:17AM

Manach wrote: »

I regret I can not furnish a text, but AFAIR Spain under Franco was fairly insistent on Gib. being part of the Spanish mainland. It had at least on one occasion make cross-border traffic difficult with the outpost if not a full blockade and had tried to get the UN involve in the dispute.

Spain would not have been allowed to join NATO under Franco, it was a dictatorship.

Spain only got a democratic govt in 82, they only offered an opinion on Gibraltar in 85.

....Anyway I have quoted NATOs exact position, read the link.

Jawgap · 14-11-2014 10:36AM

cruasder777 wrote: »

Spain would not have been allowed to join NATO under Franco, it was a dictatorship.

Spain only got a democratic govt in 82, they only offered an opinion on Gibraltar in 85.

....Anyway I have quoted NATOs exact position, read the link.

You really haven't a clue have you......

The only thing that stopped Spain joining NATO was Spain and the divisions in the Cortes between the PSOE and the UCD.

The US had a bilateral defence agreement with the country going back to 1953. When Spain applied to join in 1959 it was Norway and Denmark who scuppered her chances which led to the US withdrawing their support for the Spanish application in the interest of Alliance unity - but I'm sure an 'expert' such as yourself knows why the Scandinavians were not supportive of the Spanish?????

Portugal is a founding member of NATO and was run by Salazar at the time.

Greece joined in 1952 and suffered a coup d'etat in 1967 that ushered in the 'Regime of the Colonels.'

Likewise Turkey joined in 1952 and in 1960 suffered coups in 1960 and 1980 when military leaders took over.

You really think dictatorship was an obstacle to gaining or retaining membership?

oh, and before I forget Spain began it's campaign to regain Gib in the UN in 1963.

cruasder777 · 14-11-2014 10:50AM

You know more then an official NATO document ?

You are talking about over 60 years ago.

In the last 40 years NATOs position has been countries must be peaceful and democratic to join. This is their official position.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm

Jawgap · 14-11-2014 11:06AM

cruasder777 wrote: »

You know more then an official NATO document ?

You are talking about 50 years ago.

In the last 40 years NATOs position has been countries must be peaceful and democratic to join. This is their official position.

http://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_49212.htm

No, but I know enough to know that USAF Col F. R. Stevens. Jr., (BS, USMA; M.A., Columbia University) probably knows more about the situation vis a vis Spain and their applications join NATO. Enough to write a contemporaneous article the USAF's Air University journal in 1980 while he was a member of the United States Mission to NATO........I forgot, however, the word of a Colonel is not good enough for you

Also, I know enough to know that Portugal, Greece and Turkey have had their non-democratic periods while members of NATO - unless you are now going to say that Salazar was a misunderstood democrat, the Regime of the Colonels was quite a nice time, and the Turkish coups (I forgot the one in 1971) were just the lads out for a bit of craic?

Anyway, oh great NATO expert - why did Norway and Denmark block Spain's application?

MrConservative · 18-11-2014 03:48PM

Oafley Jones wrote: »

What do you think the cost is of operating an f16 squadron... I'm genuinely curious as to how you define affordable.

To give you an idea. The RNZAF estimated that it would cost NZD$150m p.a to operate 22 F-16 Block 15 MLU's. That was 15 years ago. It was going to require a futher $60m to operate a further 17 Aermacchi 339CB's as LIFT's, which you will need. The real acquistition cost (15 years ago) was NZD $667m. That was a special sweatheart deal BTW. It would take the RNZAF (Read Irish Air Corps) 10 years to achieve OLOC and around NZ$2-3B if it were to re-introduce an air combat capability based on fighter aircraft with supporting base infrastructure. Furthermore a minimum viable operational baseline is 18 aircraft to deploy/operate a squadron of 12. The minimum number of LIFT's to support 18 frontline fighters is around 13-15 airframes. For that you will require all up around 700 personnel to support an operational squadron, a small OCU and the LIFT Squadron which would fly around 8000 hours per annum averaging around $25000 per flight hour in real costs - again based on 1999 RNZAF figures. There are NO shortcuts. These are baselines. Trying to use LIFT aircraft in an AD role is totally pointless and has NO capability in the real world other than been 3rd world show ponies. Furthermore Ireland would require a serious and equally large investment in ISR/EW capabilities to make the fighter Squadron not deaf, dumb and blind to be able to vector its force onto the intruding blackhats. If you want to have flyway capability to support an Irish Army Battalion or have the squadron deploy overseas as part of a UN led no fly zone you will need at least 2 C-130s to make that logistically possible.

Even if Ireland did have the money and will to do all of the above I would not do it. I would suggest instead buying into the WGS partnership for satcom bandwidth and going for a tier 1 maritime ISR asset to provide a BAMS capability (think CL-605 MSA), which would make you topdog in your part of the globe (asisted by the very advantageous strategic position you have on the edge of the Northern Atlantic). You would be building on your current capabilities - a far easier thing to do than what was outlined in the above paragraph. A quarter share in an additional North Atlantic WGS would be around USD$200m for the 10 year life of the Satcom. It would likely give Ireland some further access into other
"knowlege" via its other WGS partners. Boeing believe that they can provide the CL-605MSA for around USD$65m per airframe. Not bad when you consider that it will be jammed packed with uber classified P-8 kit. Half a dozen CL-605MSA's and WGS is do-able if you need to ramp up defence capability a smidgen - clearly aging 2nd tier F-16 fighters are not and wont impress quite like the constant supply of INT gold you would get commensurate to the happenstance of your strategically significant locale. You will see the blackhats on the horizon well before they see you and you can vector your friends accross the ditch Typhoons to be a welcoming committee.

Cheers MrC

MrConservative · 18-11-2014 04:03PM

Excuse and delete the double post. A wireless blip at just the wrong time

Cheers MrC

Larbre34 · 19-11-2014 04:07PM

Ireland could do LIFT abroad. Belgium for instance would be an ideal partner nation for it if we are talking F-16s. We'd have to import a lot of the seeding experience anyway.

A 12 ship squadron is probably too many. We're not talking about having to deploy en masse for air combat, just patrol and interception of heavies. 10/12 aircraft on the books to allow for 6 active and 2 on QRA.

Silvera · 19-11-2014 09:40PM

Interesting thread. I too would like to see the Air Corps equipped with F-16's, or similar, jets.
However, realistically, I doubt it will happen in the forseeable future.

Would the next (best? affordable? realistic?) option be something like the Aero Vodochody L-159 ALCA?

- Radar-equipped
- 600mph
- c.$15 million per airframe
- Czech's have c.50 in storage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aero_L-159_Alca

Update - A US-based company has organised a deal for 24 x airframes for $26 million?!!!

"Draken International Inc. - 28 L-159: a civilian U.S. company that cooperates with the U.S. Army, will buy 28 L-159 planes (24 intact and 4 broken down for spares) in a deal worth up to $25.8 million"

A minimum defence capability ? Whats needed ?

Comments